210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : 08.01.2026

KELA DEVI AND ORS ....Appellants

Versus

M/S SANGRUR FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS AND ANR

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-15352-CII-2019 in CM-15354-CII-2019

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, seeking condonation of delay of 2010 days in filing the application

under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC for restoration of the main appeal.

2. Reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

has been filed. The same is taken on record.

3. LRs of the deceased/employee are before this Court seeking modification of the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now known as Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and hereafter referred to as ‘1923 Act’) whereby though the compensation has been awarded to the claimants, but no order

has been passed qua interest and penalty in terms of Section 4A of 1923 Act.

4. The appeal was initially filed after a delay of 86 days. However, the same was dismissed on 9^th of December, 2013 as the counsel representing the appellant failed to appear.

4.1. It is matter of record that the counsel representing the appellants initially and through whom the appeal was filed, namely Mr. Maharaj Kumar unfortunately died in April, 2018. As per the applicants/appellants, it was thereafter that they came to know of the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution that too way back in the year 2013. The present application was accordingly filed along with application under Order XLI Rule 19 seeking restoration of the appeal after inordinate delay of 2010 days.

5. Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has emphatically opposed the condonation of delay in preferring application under Order XLI Rule 19 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking restoration of the appeal.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that the appeal was initially dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.12.2013 and the applicants/appellants claim that they were never informed by their counsel.

7. In view thereof, applicants/appellants have made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. More so when the issue involved in the appeal is only qua statutory interest and penalty. Since in the interregnum period for which the condonation of delay is being sought for, no third party right has been created and the amount was utilized by the Insurance Co., the delay of 2010 days in filing the application under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC is ordered to be condoned.

8. Instant application is allowed.

CM-15354-CII-2019

1. This is an application filed under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC seeking restoration of the main appeal.

2. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number and is accordingly taken on Board today itself.

CM-13768-CII-2013 in FAO-3254-2013

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicants/appellants have made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

3. Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

86 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO-3254-2013 In view of the mandate of Section 4A of 1923 Act, order passed by the Commissioner is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, for the period commencing from 30 days after the accident till the date of actual realization.

2. They are also entitled for penalty which shall be 50% of the compensation amount along with statutory interest as prescribed under Section 4A of 1923 Act.

3. It is f